Professional Documents
Culture Documents
US Army Corps
Df Engineers
<
1
Waterways Experiment
Station
19970203 003
Final report
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
Prepared for
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Waterways Experiment
Station
HBUXUMTB6
HUM
(TON CONTACT:
Contents
Preface
1Introduction
Background
The Maturity Method
2 Materials and Methods
Materials and Concrete Mixture Properties
Calibration Specimens
Temperature and Strength Measurements of In-Place Concrete
3Results and Discussion
Empirical Determination Q and Datum Temperature
Time-Temperature History
Maturity Calculations
Predicted vs Observed Strength
iv
1
1
1
4
4
5
5
6
6
8
9
9
13
References
14
Figures 1-14
in
Preface
The investigation described in this report was conducted by the Concrete and
Materials Division (CMD), Structures Laboratory (SL), U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (WES). The work was sponsored by
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of Civil Works
Investigation Studies Work Unit 31138, "New Technologies for Testing and
Evaluating Concrete."
The study was conducted under the general supervision of Messrs. Bryant
Mather, Director, SL, and John Q. Ehrgott, Assistant Director, SL. Dr. Paul F.
Mlakar was Chief, CMD, during this work. Direct supervision was provided by
Mr. Edward F. O'Neil, Acting Chief, Engineering Mechanics Branch (EMB),
CMD. MAJ Patrick J. Harrington was the principal investigator during the
planning and data-collection phases of the work. Messrs. Anthony A. Bombich
and Richard Haskins, EMB, designed and supervised the placement of
instrumentation and automatic data collection. MAJ Harrington performed most
of the maturity calculations, and Dr. Toy S. Poole analyzed the data and wrote the
report.
At the time of the publication of this report, Director of WES was
Dr. Robert W. Whalin. Commander was COL Bruce K. Howard, EN.
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication,
or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an
official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
IV
Introduction
Background
The objective of this work was to investigate the applicability of American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 1074,1 "Standard Practice for
Estimating Concrete Strength by the Maturity Method" (ASTM 1992h), to the
estimation of in-place strength of mass concrete containing large amounts of fly
ash. To accomplish this, the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) and U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg, cooperated in an
investigation involving concrete construction at Red River Waterway Lock and
Dam No. 4 (L&D 4). This investigation included laboratory determination of
maturity parameters of the concrete mixture used at L&D 4, then compared
strengths predicted from maturity measurements with strengths measured on cores
taken from two monoliths that had been instrumented for temperature
measurements.
1
This work was done prior to 15 Sep 93 and used C 1074-87, which was replaced on 15 Sep
93 by C 1074-93, which was revised in Aug 95 to correct Equation 2.
Chapter 1
Introduction
test specimens. In the case of mass concrete, the ambient temperature is only one
of several factors controlling concrete temperature, with size of placement, rate of
heat evolution, and location in the placement being others. Therefore, the timetemperature history of mass concrete, and consequently the strength development,
may vary considerably from that of field-cured specimens and may vary
throughout the structure. This complexity makes use of laboratory-cured or fieldcured specimens essentially useless in predicting in-place strength. However, if
temperature history can be determined and a reasonable functional relationship
between strength and this time-temperature history can be developed, then
strength development can be estimated from this temperature history. There has
been and continues to be considerable research on the mathematical relationships
appropriate for this purpose (Kjellsen and Detwiler 1993; Carino and Tank 1992;
Chengju 1989; Carino, Knab, and Clifton 1992; Carino 1984). Malhotra and
Carino (1991) provides a good description of much of this. ASTM C 1074
(ASTM 1992h) is a practice that uses two of these approaches.
Literature on the application of maturity concepts to prediction of strength of
concrete date to the late 1940's (Chengju 1989; Oluokun, Burdette, and
Deatherage 1990). In these early efforts, maturity was represented as the simple
sum of the number of degree-days above 0 C, the minimum temperature at which
cement was believed to hydrate. The method was calibrated by measuring the
strength of laboratory concrete specimens whose time-temperature history was
known. This approach, with some modifications, was useful as long as concrete
temperatures did not exceed about 30 C. Beginning in the 1960's, efforts were
made to relate the effect of time-temperature history to more sophisticated
thermodynamic principles. ASTM C 1074 (ASTM 1992h) includes procedures
representing both of these approaches.
Representing the older, simpler approach, ASTM C 1074 uses the following
maturity function:
M(t) = (T, -T0)At
(1)
where
M(t) = time-temperature factor at time t
Ta
= average concrete temperature over a time interval (At)
T
= datum temperature
Datum temperature is a constant that is determined for each concrete and
represents the minimum temperature at which cement hydrates. In the absence of
an empirically determined value, the method recommends using 0 C. By use of a
set of calibration specimens, the time-temperature factor is related to strength
development. From this calibration curve, strengths can be predicted for a given
time-temperature factor of in-place concrete.
In the other approach described in ASTM C 1074 (ASTM 1992h), an
equivalent age (O is calculated:
Chapter 1
Introduction
-Q
te = Afe
_L -
T
(2)
This work was done prior to 15 Sep 1993 and used ASTM C 1074-87, which was
replaced on 15 Sep 1993 by ASTM C 1074-93, which was revised in Aug 1995 to
correct Equation 2
where
At
T
T0
Q
=
=
=
=
The reference temperature can be any value, but the same value is used
throughout all calculations. A calibration curve is prepared from strengths of
specimens whose time-temperature history is known. Then from timetemperature data taken from in-place concrete, strength can be estimated from this
calibration curve.
The principle underlying this procedure is that the dependence of rate of
strength gain on temperature follows the Arrhenius equation:
k - Ae"^
(3)
where
k
E,
R
T
A
=
=
=
=
=
Chapter 1
Introduction
Portland
Cement
Fly Ash
Si02, %
21.2
35.1
290
Al203, %
5.0
19.0
190
340
Fe203, %
6.5
1 Physical Property
8.5
CaO, %
61.6
Air, %
MgO, %
0.9
4.9
Portland
Cement
9
11.8
S03, %
2.6
2.3
16.9
LOI. %
0.8
0.3
Heat of Hydr.
kj/kg, 7 days
259
Insol. Res., %
0.11
Fineness, %
Na20, %
0.10
K20, %
0.46
C3A. %
C3S, %
37
C2S, %
33
C4AF, %
20
Density, Mg/m3
Str. Index, %, 7 day
Water Req, %
Soundness, %
-0.01
Fly Ash
~
18
2.55
85
94
0.00
1
Chapter 2
Calibration Specimens
Twenty-four 152- x 305-mm cylinders were cast for compressive strength
determinations and two similar cylinders were cast with embedded temperature
sensors in their center. The specimens were cured in a moist room meeting the
requirements of ASTM C 511 (ASTM 1992e). Compressive strengths were
determined at 1, 3, 7, 14, 27, 56, and 90 days according to ASTM C 39 (ASTM
1992b).
Table 2
Mixture Proportions for Laboratory Concrete, Mixture No. B4
Component
Portland Cement
162
kg
71
kg
Fine Aggregate
711
kg
Coarse Aggregate
637
kg
Coarse Aggregate
642
kg
Air-Entraining Admixture
104
mL
Water
125
kg
Fly Ash
0% fly ash
23 *C
TOS = 6hr
0% fly ash
38 *C
T0S = 4hr
age
age
age
age
str
str
str
str
str
35 % fly ash
38 C
TOS = 5hr
age
str
0.75
0.33
0.50
0.43
0.33
0.90
1.25
0.23
0.71
0.60
0.42
0.94
1.7
3.5
3.4
0.83
7.9
2.50
2.4
1.6
5.9
0,83
6.0
6.0
8.6
1.3
12.1
7.1
2.8
7.4
1.9
9.8
10.7
13.4
2.8
17.0
10
10.7
5.6
11.4
3.3
15.3
12
15.4
17.2
5.3
18.8
20
14.4
11
15.1
6.9
20.4
24
19.6
16
22.4
25.8
40
16.5
23
22.4
11
13
Chapter 3
34.0
Slope, days/MPa
Intercept, MPa''
r, corr. coeff.
K, days'
0% fly ash
10#C
0% fly ash
23 C
0% fly ash
38 *C
2.3126
-0.3595
0.9421
-0.1554
1.1435
-0.2623
0.9286
-0.2294
0.3650
-0.0987
0.9518
-0.2704
5.2650
-0.5343
0.9209
-0.1015
1.1832
-0.1652
0.9436
-0.1396
0.4242
-0.0827
0.9365
-0.1950
0.2222
0.0445
0.9857
0.2003
0.1179
0.0293
0.9913
0.2489
0.4391
0.0253
0.9984
0.0576
0.2622
0.0156
0.9824
0.0596
0.0734
0.0337
0.9886
0.4591
0.9683
0.0078
0.9695
0.0081
Table 5
Summary of Q Values and Datum Temperatures (DT) used in
Maturity Calculations
Q(K|
Standard
Error
DT (C|
Standard
Error
5,000
--
6,764
3,613
-0.048
0.087
10,693
5,774
-0.155
0.200
The uncertainty in these estimates is very high, as indicated by the large standard
errors, therefore, it cannot be determined whether these differences are due to
random error or to some source of bias in the determinations.
Errors in determinations of Q derive from errors in determining the rate
constants at each temperature, K, and have a large random error component due
to the fact that Q is calculated from a linear regression of only three values of K
on reciprocal time. The uncertainty in such a calculation will be large unless the
uncertainty in each of the three points is very low, which it is not.
An estimate of Q based on more data points would be more robust to errors in
the estimates of each point, but the effort involved in generating enough data to
reduce the uncertainty to reasonable levels would seriously detract from the
method. As will be discussed below, there is possibly a way to apply this method
that minimizes the need to have a very accurate estimate of Q.
Time-Temperature History
The temperature history of the laboratory-cured calibration mixture is
illustrated in Figure 3. Temperatures varied over a relatively narrow range (23.2
to 25.4 C).
The temperature history of ML6/7, which was placed in March, 1993, is
illustrated in Figure 4. Initial temperature was 17 C, increasing to a maximum
of about 32 C after 3 days. By 10 days, temperatures had approximately
returned to the starting temperature. Temperatures from 10 to 52 days, when the
testing was stopped, ranged from about 15 to 23 C.
The temperature history of ML14/15, which was placed in August, 1993, is
illustrated in Figure 5. The entire temperature history of this monolith was
substantially warmer than ML6/7. Initial temperatures were about 30 C, rising
to about 49 C after 3 days. Temperatures decreased more slowly than' in L- 6/7,
cooling to the initial temperature after about 30 days. Temperatures between 30
and 44 days, when testing was stopped, ranged from 25 to 32 C.
Chapter 3
Maturity Calculations
Maturity calculations and strengths of specimens used for making the
calibration curve are summarized in Table 6. Calculations were done for a Q
value of 10,693 k, as determined empirically, and for a Q value of 5,000 k. The
latter is the value of Q recommended by ASTM C 1074 (ASTM 1992h), if no
empirically determined value is known. A reference temperature of 20 C was
used. The slight elevation of the curing temperature over the reference
temperature caused the equivalent ages to be somewhat accelerated relative to real
time.
Time-temperature calculations were done with a value of DT of -0.115 C,
determined empirically, and a value of DT of 0 C. The latter value is
recommended by ASTM C 1074, if no empirical value has been determined.
Table 6
Maturity Values and Strength Data for Calibrations Specimens
Equivalent Age, days
Age, real
time, days
Q= 10,693
Time-Temperature Factor,
degree-days
Q=5,000
DT'= -0.155
DT = 0
Observed
Strength,
MPa
1.8
1.3
25.0
25.0
1.7
5.0
3.8
72.7
72.5
4.8
11.2
8.7
167.2
166.8
6.9
14
22.2
17.4
333.3
332.6
11.2
27
42.6
33.4
641.8
640.5
14.8
56
85.8
68.4
1,317.3
1,314.6
22.8
90
136.3
109.3
2,165.9
2,161.4
27.2
Table 7
Maturity Calculations and Strength Data for L- 6/7
Equivalent Age, days
Age, real
time, days
Q= 10,693
Q= 5,000
Time-Temperature Factor,
degree-days
DT = -0.155
DT = 0
Observed
Strength
MPa
12.5
6.7
114.6
114.4
8.9
18.7
10.8
191.2
190.9
11.4
14
24.6
17.3
321.4
320.7
18.0
28
35.6
29.8
574.9
573.6
25.4
52
55.7
51.7
1,016.7
1,014.2
36.1
Table 8
Maturity Calculations and Strength Data for ML14/15
Equivalent Age, days
Age, real
time, days
0=10,693
Q = 5,000
Time-Temperature Factor,
degree-days
DT = -0.155
DT = 0
Observed
Strength
MPa
81.2
14.2
183.3
183.1
8.5
131.3
27.3
316.5
316.1
18.0
14
184.7
45.2
575.5
574.9
23.7
28
233.2
73.7
1,032.4
1,033.0
29.0
44
292.8
99.2
1,485.9
1,483.8
31.6
10
Chapter 3
11
temperature and the reference temperature were very close together. The result
of this relative conformity between these temperatures was that the part of the
exponent of the maturity equation that is calculated from the difference between
the reciprocal of the reference temperature and the reciprocal of the monolith
temperature was usually a relatively small number and the value of Q used was
then relatively unimportant. In the case of ML14/15, the initial temperature was
about 10 deg above the reference temperature, the peak temperatures were close
to 30 deg above the reference temperature, and the average temperature during
the latter part of data collection was still about 10 deg above the reference value.
Therefore, the temperature-difference part of the maturity equation was relatively
larger and the value of Q used had a larger impact on calculations.
Given the large uncertainties in measuring Q, that Q probably varies with time
and temperature, and the importance of the value of Q used when large
temperature increases occur, a considerable improvement in the practical
application of the technique would probably be realized if the specimens used to
generate the calibration curves relating maturity to strength experienced a timetemperature history similar to that expected in the in-place concrete. For
example, in this project, calibration specimens given a temperature increase of
about 20 C, gradually applied and removed over a 10-day interval would
probably work well. Then, since both in-place and calibration concretes
experience similar time-temperature histories, a reference temperature could be
chosen that would minimize the size of the temperature-difference part of the
maturity equation for both concretes, thus minimizing the importance of the value
of Q used. This approximate temperature matching would hopefully also avoid
the effect of the apparent time and temperature dependency of Q.
12
Chapter 3
Conclusions and
Recomendations
Chapter 4
13
References
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1992). 1992 annual book ofASTM
standards. Philadelphia, PA.
a. Designation C 31-91. "Standard practice for making and curing concrete
test specimens in the field.
b. Designation C 39-86. "Standard test method for compressive strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens."
c. Designation C 150-92. "Standard specification for portland cement."
d.
14
Chapter 4
Carino, N.J., and Tank, R. C. (1992). "Maturity functions for concretes made
with various cements and admixtures," ACI Materials Journal 89(2), 188-196.
Chengju, G. (1989). "Maturity of concrete: Method for predicting early-stage
strength," ACI Materials Journal 86(4), 341-353.
Kjellsen, K. O., and Detwiler, R. J. (1993). "Later-age strength prediction by a
modified maturity model," ACI Materials Journal 90(3), 220-227.
Malhotra, V.M., and Carino, N.J. (1991). "The maturity method." CRC
handbook on nondestructive testing of concrete. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Oluokun, F. A., Burdette, E. G., and Deatherage, J. H. (1990). "Early-age
concrete strength prediction by maturity another look," ACI Materials
Journal 87(6), 565-572.
Parsons, T.J., and Naik.T.R. (1985). "Early age concrete strength
determination by maturity," Concrete International 7(2), 37-43.
Chapter 4
> &
'''
Tfcenaocsi^lc Array
^ / /
A
- !
ffl
W
data logger
b. Details of thermocouple array in lock wall, as illustrated in part a.
Figure 1.
Positioning of thermocouples
//
no fly ash
2 fly ash
(0
^^ >^ * * *
0 - *P^*"
1i ^
2
1/days
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Age, days
Figure 5.
60
25 -
""..,..
.
/
CD
(U
20 -
15 -
10 -
//
Uf
Q=5,000 K
5 -
10
12
Figure 6.
14
30
25
CO
20
o.
?15
5 -
10
20
30
40
Figure 7.
50
40
35 -
05
Q_
C
(D
i_
30 -
error ~ -55%
25 -
to
20 O
<D
vCL
Q=4,000 K
15
error - -40%
10 -
5 -
'4
10
15
20
25
52
30
35
40
Figure 8.
Af\
35 -
rO
error = -50%
N>
Predicted Strength, IV
S. 30-
15 error = -34%
^^^
10 /4 Jm
5 4
c
14
28
52
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure 9.
40
45
error=46%
^ Q=10,693
40 35
Q_
Q=7000
/ A Q=6000
.-' y / Q=5000
/^
>VvQ=4000
T
30
C
Q)
| 25
0)
o
V 20
Q_
error=180%
error = -25%
15 -
10
15
20
14
28
25
30
44
35
40
45
Figure 10. Predicted vs measured strength for L-14/15 using equivalent-age calculations. Q
ranges from 4,000 to 10,693 K
45
40 35 CL
30
error = -40%
*25
*->
o
'a
S> 20
Q_
15 -
error = -10% .-
14
28 44
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Figure 11. Predicted vs measured strength for L-14/15 using time-temperature calculations
30
calibration batch
25 -
lift 6/7/
i
Strength, MPa
lift 14/15
10 -
o -I
20
40
60
80
1(DO
Time, days
Figure 12. Comparison of strengths of quality control batches with strength of calibration
batch
Ar\
,*
.-
35 -
ro
ro
Predicted Strength,
I 30-
15 -
5 i
14
52
28
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 13.
tu
35 -
CO
30 -
Q_
Q=4,000 K
a>
c
25 -
CD
.+_.*
CO
o
0)
**'
O
T3
CD
20 -
M-
i_
Q_
error < 5%
15 -
Q=1.0,693 K.
" ^.^^
\ \k+ ^
10 -
error ~-33%
.--5^*
^y*Jtr
<j
14
28
52
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
L
Figure 14. Predicted vs measured strength for L-6/7 using equivalent-age calculations and QC
data for calibration
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing inarucfons,:searching existing data sourcesgarnering
rtSS needed, and complefing and reviewing the collects of information. Send cements regarding iMs burden est,^^^J^
informal, irking suggest for reducing m*^^^^^^^
"^S VAS^ *e ^cVi Management and Budge,, Papenvo* Reducfen Project (0704^188). Washington. DC 20503.
2. REPORT DATE
December 1996
Final report
5.
FUNDING NUMBERS
An Evaluation of the Maturity Method (ASTM C 1074) for Use in Mass Concrete
6. AUTHOR(S)
I.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
12a.
DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
12b.
DISTRIBUTION CODE
Maturity parameters were determined on a mass concrete mixture according to American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) C 1074. Time-temperature measurements were made on two concrete placements at Red River
Lock and Dam 4 for the first 40 to 60 days after placement. These data were used to predict strengths from the concrete's maturity. The placements were also cored to determine in-place strength. Strength development within the first
few days of placing were reasonably well predicted by maturity, but predicted and measured strength differed widely
after that. Large uncertainties in the maturity parameters were encountered. Probable causes of the large differences
and the large uncertainties are discussed and recommendations made on modifications to the procedure for mass concrete.
15.
33
Mass concrete
Maturity
Predicted strength
17.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
UNCLASSIFIED
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
NUMBER OF PAGES
UNCLASSIFIED
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102